Replies

"Miranda is not required to ask this guy a number of questions about imminent dangers to the public. "

Not mirandizing this kid as a practical matter gains nothing for the reasons I gave, but potentially could seriously complicate the prosecution.

If the defense lawyers can successfully challenge the exemption, then not only the statements made by the defendant must be excluded from evidence, but also any OTHER evidence that in turn is found based on clues from the inadmissible statement (the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). There are a number of exceptions to this exception, but you've just handed the defense something to fight with as you litigate whether it falls within the exceptions to the exception. You get a stupid judge or a left-wing wacko judge, and the prosecutors might get screwed.

Since Obama is not going to enhance interrogate this guy anyway, just read him his rights and get on with it.

I completely get your point on this, but I simply can't imagine a defense attorney successfully arguing that there is no ongoing public safety threat when the police are finding his, and his brother's, bombs all over the place.

I think there really is a public safety reason to ask this punk some questions, especially since we don't want some explosives in a storage unit to go undiscovered until they blow up and kill someone.

If the police then discover evidence in said theoretical storage unit packed with explosives that implicates other parties, again, I can't imagine a successful argument that it was fruit of the poisoned tree.

Police presently have every reason to believe there may be additional explosives out there. If they Mirandize him, they cannot (for court purposes) ask him any questions because he is in distress (injured, drugged, etc.) or, even if they do, any subsequent evidence they find could not be used against future implicated parties.

I've had many cases where I employed the public safety exception, to great effect, particularly with firearms used in violent felonies.